In the Iraq/Iran war, we did not want either side to win - we disliked them both. Iraq was by far the weaker of the two, so we supported them. We even gave them logistical support and intel to make Iraq's use of WMDs more effective - sarin gas, etc. That was a source of some of the suspicion that Iraq may still have such weapons. But, they didn't.
This is just the nonsense of playing "what if" games. The Iraqi leadership including parliament was adamantly opposed to US military presence. We worked the edges on that a little, but to claim there was a chance fo ran actual US military force independent of direct Iraqi control is just plain bull. We couldn't even sustain our military training direction - especially since we were mostly interested in training Sunnis, who the Shiite government hated to the point of total exclusion from the military and use of the military to carry out ethnic cleansing operations.
Iraqi leadership was persuadable, as I already said. And we were certainly not "mostly interested in training Sunnis."
You're still playing "what if" games. You have NO evidence of how "persuadable" Iraq's government might have been concerning US military presence. And, yes we did have a focus on Sunni military training, as having strong Sunni troops integrated in the Iraqi military was seen as a way to lead Iraq to a more diverse government - one less likely to continue using its Shiite dominated military in ethnic cleansing operations.
You are right. If American people think inflation, higher gas price, paying billions in Ukraine and southern border, and Afghanistan are worse then elect the guy, who wanted to overturn their ( 81 American people) vote so he can stay in power , to be POTUS. SO be it. That is what democracy is all about. As far as I am concern, no gas price is high enough to give up American democracy. But if majority Americans thinks differently, so be it.
Fought you in the gulf war? You attacked Iraq after saying that you would not get involved with Kuwait. Iraq invaded Kuwait because they were slant drilling into Iraqi soil stealing Iraqi oil.
Oh it’s not about Uday and Qusay anymore? That’s what I thought. The objective keep moving. First it was WMD and Saddam trained 9/11 hijacker, then Saddam is WMD himself, and Uday and Qusay bad, very bad people. Then some Abu guy and then Freedom, democracy , liberty, Iraqi translator, and women in lake , and rape victim, democracy, freedom, and more word salad. By then 4,488: U.S. service personnel killed directly. 32,223: Troops injured $1.7 trillion: Amount in war expenses spent by the U.S. Treasury Department as through Fiscal Year 2013. $7 trillion: Projected interest payments due by 2053 (because the war was paid for with borrowed money). 134,000: Civilians killed directly.
You are right. The US prolonged the war by two years by covertly switching sides from Iraq to Iran when it looked like a stalemate was occurring. The US did not, and still do not, want a stable Middle East
“Stalin killed 1 million on purpose.” And you are advocating people are nostalgic about those days. As I have said, only reason someone would praise those days if PUTIN has gun to their head.
You wrote "There are millions of Russian and Russian speaking people live in these countries and they want to be part of Russia / USSR brought their own people from Russia and gave land, business, shops , high government post to Russian in these B9 countries." And your deportations from Eastern Europe and Russians send to Eastern Europe is simply not true. Most of those countries, excluding the Baltic states, did not happen on that scale. The amount of Russians living in Eastern Europe, excluding the Baltic states, is hardly worth mentioning. I bet there were more Polish ppl living in the UK when it was part of the EU than Russians living in Poland. In the end, Hungary, where you noted that 600k people got deported, is just rather pro Russia. ' https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-pro-russia-stance-inevitable/ You are mixing the stuff communism did for such people, with the atrocities of Stalin that he did against such people... which has nothing to do with communism. That is where you go wrong.
Ok let’s take a step back for a moment. Are you advocating “ communism” a political philosophy is good. I disagree but I have no issue if you believe that. But if you are advocating the B9 countries would rather give up their independent and join Russia because once upon a time USSR offered them pension . Then you are completely misguided.
US policy aimed at a non-sectarian Iraqi force. Iraq's government was persuadable in the way consistent with human nature.
I'm not advocating countries giving up their independence and join Russia. WTF are you on about? lol I noted that plenty of those eastern Europeans are nostalgic about communism. And there is simply something to be said that when your body is getting old that the state will provide for your retirement including your healthcare bills for free. And we are talking about people age 50 and up who would have been eligible for it.
Great - you agree with what I said about our support for religious diversity and the very different nature of the government that the USA installed in Iraq after their election was essentially a 4 way tie.
Al-Maliki was Iraq's first full-term post-war prime minister. He was appointed by U.S. Armed Forces Coalition leader Michael Douglas Barbero. He and his significant Shia militia had worked with the US military in fighting Kurds and Sunnis and continued throughout his tenure a policy of exclusion and elimination of those citizens of Iraq, even to the point of carrying out ethnic cleansing operations in various cities that Shia believed were Shia. Saddam Hussein had followed a policy of working to integrate Iraq, which resulted in mixed religion neighborhoods and other pluralities in the cities of Iraq. Maliki continued as a serious block to dreams of a diverse and inclusive nation, especially as he eliminated Sunnis from government including parliament.
He never wanted to "overturn" any vote. Wow... that's a level of buying DNC propaganda hook, line an sinker not seen before. Democracy is in trouble because of left wing attempts to control the media and stifle free speech, but that has nothing to do with Trump.
Do you have any idea how many countries in this world have autocratic republics or just straight up autocrats? Are you seriously suggesting that is a justification for WAR??
Trump took explicit action to overturn election results by appealing to leaders who could possibly "find" votes, etc. and by fomenting an insurrection in the USA through his claims of injustice and the need for immediate action. He also generated numerous court cases where he attempted to overturn results on the basis of totally empty claims - which is NOT a legitimate approach to democracy. The threat to democracy comes in the form of Republican moves to reduce the number of opponents who can vote, gerrymander away representation, enact laws to give state government the right to overturn local elections, the denial of equal access to polls, etc.
Not at all. We went to Iraq to knock out Saddam, period. Establishment of democracy was something we were bound to do afterward.
Nobody goes to war to "knock out" its leader. There has to be some actual justification, or it's just a crime.
